The Australian National University
••••
e
Centre for Resource
and Environmental Studies
Ecological sustainability,
deep environmental ethics and Tao:
a preliminary conjunction
Fundamental Questions Paper No.4
David Bennett
Department of Philosophy
University of Adelaide
1990
FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS pAPER
Ecological sustainability,
deep environmental ethics and Tao:
a preliminary conjunction
Fundamental Questions Paper No.4
David Bennett
Department of Philosophy
University of Adelaide
1990
ISBN 0 86740 389 6
This paper is an outcome of the theme area of societal values and ecological
sustainability of the Fundamental Questions Program.
Other papers in this theme area include:
No.3 The evolution of societal values compatible with ecological sustainability
A. J . D. Bellett
No.5. Values for sustainability: the necessity of transcendence and sacred realms.
P. Cock
No.6. Environmental management and the political philosophy of trust.
G. McDonnell
No.7. Aborigines, values and the environment.
K. Palmer
No . 8. How green was my Mallee: changing Australian attitudes to their land.
B . Roberts
Work in this theme area was assisted by
financial support from the Howard Norman Trust.
Papers in the Fundamental Questions Paper series arise from Part 2 of the
Fundamental Questions Program at CRES. The main outcome of Part 1 of the
program is presented in Our biosphere under threat: ecological realities and
Australian opportunities (S.Boyden, S.Dovers and M.Shirlow, Melbourne:
Oxford University Press, 1990).
The Fundamental Questions Program seeks to engender and inform
public discussion of the implications for Australian society of the need for
long-term ecological sustainability.
Ecological sustainability, deep
environmental ethics and Tao:
a preliminary conjunction
The fundamental questions that I wish to explore
are: ' What are the relationships among ecological sustainability, deep environmental ethics and
Tao?' and 'What can Tao offer Western approaches to ecological sustainability?'
It might be asked, 'Why ask these particular
questions? ' Why is it assumed that there is some
relationship among ecological sustainability,
deep environmental ethics and Tao? Behind the
fund amental questions there are assumptions
that need to be brought to light that will help
answer all the above questions.
The first assumption is that the fundamental
relationship among these elements is founded on
values . The catch phrase of 'ecological
sustainability • and the cry for environmental
awareness and concern are moving up the political, social and ethical agendas of individuals,
peoples, cultures and nation-states around the
globe. Ecological sustainability is being accorded significant value. The reasons for this
are diverse, such as:
perspective of the species has to overcome shortterm interests of existing individuals. For instance, environmentalists find it amazing that
wood chippers fail to see that the jobs they are
fighting so hard to keep now will be gone with
the forest in one, two or five years· time, when
they have clear felled the forest. For the most
part, industrialized societies take short-term (and
retrospective) patch and repair approaches to environmental damage rather than the long-term
(and foresighted) prevention of damage. Fish
disappear from the Thames, the Hudson, or the
Seine and a concerted effort reverses the rot to the
extent that fish reinhabit it and pollution levels
are lowered. But if present and future generations of humans, of other species and of environmental items and systems are considered
desirable, that is valuable, then their survival is
to be taken account of and encouraged.
Humanity, especially in the developed nations , such as Australia, has pursued economic
growth to the exclusion of almost all else. The
sort of over-indulgent economic pursuit that
lead Aldo Leopold, the American ecosaint, to
say, 'I believe that many of the economic forces
inside the modern body-politic are pathogenic in
respect to harmony with land • (Leopold 1953,
153). The environment and ecological cycles
and relationships have been sacrificed for
economic gain. As Richard Eckersley of
CSIRO has stated this:
• to maintain essential ecological processes
and life-support systems;
• to preserve genetic diversity;
• to ensure the sustainable utilisation of
species and ecosystems;
• to maintain and enhance environmental
qualities
(Endangered Species Advisory Committee 1989, 7)
environmental problems have a common
source. ... It is not the pursuit of
economic growth and an ever-increasing
material standard of living. It is the pursuit of these things to the virtual exclusion of all else. We are putting too
much emphasis on wealth generation
and not enough on its distribution and
conservation.
but an underlying motivation is simply identified
survival. Humanity has threatened its own existence as well as the existence of the rest of the environment. Humans and the environment need
not survive, of course. The anthropocentric survival argument, that is, appealing to human survival should be a very strong argument, but it is
not. It is weak, because the long-term survival
1
The links between economic growth and
environmental degradation are clear.
Japan's striking success in becoming one
of the world's biggest economies has
come at the price of becoming also one of
the world's biggest polluters (Eckersley
1988, 9)
Common Future is not compatible with ecological sustainability. As it is conceived, it is incompatible with the flourishing of other species,
unless they are considered part of 'future
generations' and 'the world's poor' (which is
doubtful), and with reduction of human interference. Although the idea of integrated and sustainable development has been floated,
Ecological sustainability means integrating ensustainable means sustainable in relation to
vironmental considerations with economic
humans. The sustainable development policy
growth or replacing non-environmentally acdoes not lower human impact on the environment,
countable economic considerations with ones
consider long-term viability of other species, nor
which are. The primary value of ecological susinclude the requirements of non-humans into containability is that without it there is no economic
siderations of meeting the requirements of
sustainability. The principle behind the shift
humans. The environment remains a human arfrom economic pursuit to ecological sustifact and is not valued in and of itself. Ecologitainability is an ecological one and can be easily
cal sustainability is defined solely in terms of
spelt out in terms of habitat destruction. Habitat
human sustainability rather than environmental
destruction is the greatest threat to species sursustainability.
vival, regardless of the species. Even the most
Thus the first relationship among ecological
adaptive species have tolerance limits. Without
sustainability, deeper environmental ethics and
the integration of ecological sustainability with
Tao is a common search for a way of according
economic sustainability, there is no foundation
greater or substantial value to the environment
for human life or for other species.
and environmental considerations . The
Perhaps the most often quoted source for the
dominant paradigm for valuing the environintegration of economic and ecological susment, which is to consider it as an instrument for
tainability is the World Commission On Enhuman use or a human artifact, has proven unvironment and Development's report Our
satisfactory. Indeed it has proven so unsatisfacCommon Future, or as it is commonly known the
tory that it has produced environmental crisis
Brundtland Report after Ms Gro Harlem
and has become a case of 'when-all-else-failsBrundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister who
read-the-instructions'. When all or many of our
headed the Commission. The Brundtland Commodifications of nature fail, it is time to read the
mission uses 'sustainable development', instead
instructions. And the instructions that come
of economic sustainability, which it defines as
with nature indicate that when a species over' development that meets the needs of the present
fills and overruns its niche, when a species overwithout compromising the ability of future
utilises its resource base, when a species lives
generations to meet their own needs' (World
beyond its environmental capital, it must move
Commission 1987, 43). In a shortfall attempt
on or die.
to designate the value accorded to ecological
Ecological sustainability recognises a
sustainability, the Commission states that susnatural order. The manipulation of nature
tainable development contains two concepts:
(ecological systems) under the banner of
ecological sustainability recognises the neces• the concept of 'needs', in particular the
sity
to maintain the system while drawing vital
essential needs of the world's poor, to which
needs
from it. Natural limits are recognised.
overriding priority should be given; and
There are only finite quantities of nonrenewable
• the idea of limitations imposed by the state
resources such as the fossil fuels , coal and
of technology and social organization on the
petroleum, available, and once they are depleted
environment's ability to meet present and
they cannot be replaced (not, at least, in human
future needs (World Commission 1987, 43)
time spans). For example, consider what many
hold to be the energy hope for the future to
This attempt falls short because it still places
replace the depleted fossil fuels nuclear energy:
economic considerations ahead of ecological
Given current practices [nuclear energy]
considerations instead of integrating them. The
too is a non-renewable resource. Even at
purportedly integrated sustainability of Our
2
current rates of consumption there are
only enough recoverable uranium reserves to last between 37 and 70 years; and
this providing we are willing to live with
the occasional disasterJ the accumulation
of radioactive wastes, and the resultant
environmental damage. (Flannery and
Conlon 1989, 150, 152)
clarify this last point, the extinction of any given
species is inevitable, but humans need not bring
this upon themselves or accelerate the process
by destroying the environment, and therefore,
their resource base. Ecological sustainability is
more than a delaying tactic; it is planned and
managed strategic use of ecological principles
and processes to maintain a constant supply,
rather than merely conserve a constantly
decreasing supply. It is preservation plus
prolonged, controlled, that is, sustainable use.
It is modification without devastation.
Ecological sustainability as thus far defined
has the following embedded assumptions:
While renewable resources have the potential for
replacement, they cannot be consumed faster than
they can regenerate, if they are to be ecologically sustainable. Although other resources, such as
com, rice and other cereals, cattle, fish and timber, renew themselves and can be regularly
cropped to provide the food, clothing and shelter
essential to human survival, it is not so clearly
realised that these resources are renewable only
to the extent that their use is rationally planned
and managed. There are limits to the extent to
which we can draw on these resources; if these
limits are exceeded, this will destroy the capacity
of resource renewal. Unfortunately, most current
utilisation of aquatic animals, of the wild plants
and animals of the land, of forest and of grazing
lands is not sustainable. For example, 'More than
11 million hectares offorest are destroyed yearly '
(Commission For The Future 1989, 5) and 6 million hectares tum into desert yearly (Commission
For The Future 1989, 5). At the current cutting
rates virtually all of South America, Africa and
substantial portions of Asia will be deforested by
2020 (Hemenway 1986, 3). As another example,
according to Geoff Kirkwood, CSIRO Principal
Research Scientist in the division of fisheries, 'In
world fisheries generally there is a push to overexploitation. The southern blue fin tuna is one of
the worst examples' (Austin 1989, 40). The only
safe catch limit would be zero, 'because a
fisheries resource can progress from being unexploited to fully or overexploited before basic
population dynamics information can be
gathered.' (Austin 1989, 40) , therefore a sustainable catch limit is the single greatest challenge facing fishery industries.
Ecological sustainability is more than the
conservation of resources. Conservation is the
rationing or stretching of resources to delay the
inevitable or foreseeable end of them. At worst,
sustainability places the end beyond sight and ,
at best, makes the inevitable a function of unaided ecological processes, rather than bringing
it about as a result of human hubris in attempting to contravene ecological processes. To
1.
that there are discoverable ecological principles that can be followed;
2.
that there is greater value in following
them rather than opposing or attempting to
contravene them by manipulating them;
and
3.
that following these ecological principles
at least provides the potential for sufficient
renewable resources.
These assumptions are the assumptions of
Tao. Tao combines a complex of natural principles and methods with guiding ethical forms,
with no imposed separation of fact and value.
'The word tao consists of one element meaning
a head and another meaning to run. It means
that on which something or someone goes [that
by which a thing becomes what it is], a path or
road, later extended to mean "method", "principle" ... ' (Chan 1963, 6).
The great or overarching Tao is a comprehensive source of natural activity; it encapsulates a
framework of forms or principles, principles of
natural order, both metaphysical and moral. It
comprises both dynamic principles (or evolving
'laws') of nature and axiological principles
guiding conduct. In this representation it invites
comparison with Plato's forms. But to see overarching Tao as an axiological ontology, after the
pattern of Plato's Form theory, would be to import unwarranted Western assumptions.
Though Tao is a 'great form' , and there is no
doubt room in the generous object framework
for other forms, main Platonic forms such as
Beauty, Truth and Goodness do not feature in the
Tao-te Ching, the principle text of Taoism. Tao
as an informing source is summed up in such
phrases as 'The or~ginal of everything and out
3
of which all arises.' Tao as combined governing
principle and source is summed up in such
phrases as 'the ancestor and mother of all
things' . Tao supplies both the material source
and the form, the genetic coding, for existence.
Tao is the way of the universe. In other words,
it is the ecological principles to be discovered
and followed.
The value of following nature rather than opposing it or attempting to manipulate it is in
achieving sustainability and hopefully an adequacy__of supply, while simultaneously keeping
the ecological systems, cycles and processes intact. Tao is not supernatural, and it does not
transcend natural things in the fashion of
Western supernatural religions. Tao orders and
reflects nature. As to the status of the principles, standard Western categorisations are exceeded. These principles are not transcendent,
governing things externally, but are, so to speak,
self-supplying. A major difference between
ecological sustainability and Tao is that ecological principles are normally considered to be external to the organisms that they affect, Tao
principles are both external and internal to the
things that they affect. There is a sense of identification between the individual tao and the
great overarching Tao that supplies the principles that an individual may follow. One Tao
metaphor that expresses this is the image of the
chef cutting meat with the grain of the meat and
along the bone rather than across them. The
chef never dulls his/her knife and never attempts
to cut the bone. But this means that some ways
of cutting meat are precluded, such as dicing and
chopping into mince. The image is particularly
apt in these times of wood chipping.
In contrast to European political thought of
the mainstream Hobbes-Locke strain, where the
state-of-nature is one of chaos or extreme disorder, the Taoist state-of-nature is one of order. A
main assumption of Western thought, that political order must be imposed by regulation on an
unruly state-of-nature, is thus undercut. A
separate imposed political order is not required;
that idea rests on mistaken assumptions.
Politics can, and should, follow nature. Science
and politics can and should be blended, not
sharply separated in the typical Western fashion,
where nature is taken to exclude value. Nature
presumes value.
Nature is already in order as it normally is,
through a unity in diversity which involves a
normative component- a principle or recipe for
4
how things 'should' be as well as how they are
integrally. Values are built into the environment, an integral part of the way of things. By
following the values of Tao one enters and
comes into contact with the whole environment
and into unity with the environment. Tao is a
description of how things are and a prescription
of how to act in accord with the way they are.
According to Taoism then, by contrast with
dominant Western thought which sees the world
as extensional, mechanistic and value-neutral
(except for human cargo), the world is both intensional and value-infused. These features extend not merely to the whole, but to components
which go into composing the greater whole.
These have their ways, which are integrated into
the greater way.
The overarching Tao combines many individual ones, lesser or lower case taos, within
it. Such a lesser tao, of an individual, system or
whatever, is what makes a thing what it is
properly, a coursed or directed path. A tao is a
sourced directed object; it is thus a type of object, a dynamic item, which can be represented
by a pair comprising a recipe, program or form
and a direction or goal-orientation. Accordingly, an individual or local tao (or form) resembles
one of Aristotle's individual forms as coupled
with a telos, which comprises a normative directive. For both Aristotle and Tao there is, in effect, an 'invisible hand' at work.
Taoism holds that there is no genuine
problem of plenitude; things are not scarce,
there is an abundant outpouring from nature.
There is scarcity only because of violations of
the requirements of Tao (rather as some claim
there is food scarcity even now, with present
gigantic human populations, only because of
politico-economic mismanagement). Tao will
serve to restore plenitude (Chan 1963,77).
Rather than a collection of scarce resources, Nature is represented as a virtually infinite
storehouse of boundless wealth. It seems plain,
however, that Tao did not face environmental
problems such as those of too many people and
of incremental resource degradation. Tao texts
say little about soil degradation and deforestation, long major environmental problems in
China. By contrast, in the West, Plato was
properly concerned about deforestation in
Greece. Nor does Taoism have much to offer
directly on major contemporary issues of animal
liberation~ species loss, urban disgustification,
and so forth, though some of the problems are
hardly new. Historic Taoism, too, was a product
of its times, and it adjusted to what were seen as
problems.
With respect of the abundance of nature, in
addition to not recognising the overpopulation
problem, Tao also held a principle of frugality.
Frugality is not impoverishment, but a renunciation of excess. Needs are met adequately
without deprivation or excess. This is achieved
through voluntary simplicity (my choice of
phrase, not Taoism's). Tao offers a deep form
of voluntary simplicity. Voluntary simplicity
can initially be explained through its two obvious components: simplicity, and its voluntary
adoption. Simplicity connects with, and is often
equated with frugality, as elaborated in Taoism.
But whether or not simplicity is obtained from
frugality or other Taoist virtues, it plays a direct
and important part in the theory, and is in fact
modelled , like its metaphysical counterpart, the
unconceptualised Whole, by the uncarved
block, a central Gestalt of the theory. The block
symbolises unity, simplicity and naturalness not
spoiled by artifice, metaphysically the wholeness and unity of Tao before conceptual carving,
and ethically the wholesome straightforward
non-devious life under Te, the 'simple life that
is free from cunning and cleverness, is not
devoted to the pursuit of profit or marked by
hypocritical humanity and righteousness, but is
characterised by plainness, tranquillity, and
purity' (Chan 1963, 14). Te is the complementary principle to Tao. Te can be translated as virtue, but virtue is misleading because Te is the
vital power that belongs to a follower of Tao
who is in harmony with nature's changes. If Tao
is the Way, then Te is the virtue or power gained
by following the Way. As to voluntariness,
people have a choice of selecting the way of Tao
rather than one of the deviant ways. It is a
choice of recipes frugal vs. excess, relatedness
vs. non-relatedness, tall poppies vs. not daring
to be ahead. But one does not attempt to force
one's way onto the correct path. To hyperactively seek the path is a deviation in itself. It is
deontic to speak of a requirement to find the correct path.
This is a connecting principle uniting
ecological sustainability, deep environmental
ethics and Tao. Ecological sustainability on its
ecological side seeks to identify ecological principles, cycles, or metaphorically the instructions
that come with the environment, having identified them, the sustainability side seeks to fol-
5
low them, instead of opposing them and by opposing end them. There is a natural order to be
discovered and obeyed or at least not opposed.
Ecological systems are complex so it is not easy
to discover precisely how they work, but it is
easy enough to disrupt them and discover how
they do not work.
Tao offers the notion of respectful use.
Dominant Western traditions have offered the
false choice between respectful nonuse and disrespectful use. It has been an all or none situation in which environmental items have either
been available for almost unrestricted use with
economic considerations being the major or
only restriction on use, or environmental items
have been protected and all use prohibited. In
following nature some current uses would continue, such as tourism at Uluru, although perhaps on a more restricted basis, and some
current prohibitions would remain, for example,
gravel extraction from Uluru would be out of the
question. Respectful uses would be the
hallmark free-range egg production instead of
battery production.
To follow the instructions that come with nature requires fundamental changes and for changes to be of any consequence, they must be at
the basic philosophical level, thus the need for
a deep environmental philosophy. The suggested change 'to follow Nature' can be drawn
from the Cynics; from Aldo Leopold, who said,
'A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise'
(Leopold 1966, 262); or Tao. In part, Tao constitutes the principles, cycles, or the set of instructions, but with the proviso that Tao
instructions are more caveats than prescriptions,
that is, ignoring them is more like self-inflicting
a wound than transgressing a moral 'ought'. If
this is so, then what is the relationship between
Tao and deep environmental ethics? One explanation of a relationship, and the one that first
inspired me to become interested in the environmental aspects of Tao, is given by Deep Ecology, which is the most widely known of the deep
environmental ethics. Deep Ecology combines
practical prescriptions with normative principles. Deep Ecology draws on Tao and acts as
a practical platform for transferring the insights
and wisdom of Tao to a program of ecological
sustainability without the necessity of adopting
Tao as a religion in part or in whole, although
adopting Tao as a religion is not precluded.
Christianity
Deep Ecology is a way of interpreting the instructions that come with nature.
Deep Ecology is a deep environmental movement founded in Europe and adopted in
Australia and elsewhere, largely through the influence of advocates like the Norwegian
philosopher, Arne Naess, who coined the tenn
'Deep Ecology' and Bill Devall, a US West
Coast doyen of Deep Ecology, both of whom
have visited Australia on several occasions. Although many have eagerly embraced Deep Ecology world-wide, it has also attracted many
critics. Its philosophical core is less than
rigourous intentionally so. The philosophical
core of Deep Ecology is called ecosophy.
Devall and George Sessions, another US West
Coast advocate of Deep Ecology, have defined
ecosophy as 'a normative system which includes
both norms (or basic values) and factual
hypotheses' (Devall and Sessions 1985, 226).
To blend facts and values is against the former
mainstream of Western philosophy, which since
the time of Hume held a rigid fact/value distinction. The philosophical core of Deep Ecology,
therefore, presents a different ethical footing
rather than an extension of dominant systems.
It is a different order of ethic rather than a variation on a theme. Ecosophy is a combination of
'ecos ' meaning 'household' in the ancient Greek
(and is the same root for 'economics') and
'sophia' meaning 'wisdom'. Figuratively,
ecosophy is the wisdom of living in harmony
with nature, that is one's household in the
broadest sense. Ecosophy involves a shift from
mere science to wisdom. Naess also coined the
term 'ecosophy'. Deep Ecology is an elaboration of the position that natural things other than
humans have value in themselves and that that
value sometimes exceeds the value of or had by
humans. In other words, Deep Ecology rejects
both the ' Sole Value Assumption' and the
'Greater Value Assumption'. The 'Sole Value
Assumption' is the assumption that humans and
human projects are the only items of value. The
'Greater Value Assumption' is the assumption
that humans and human projects always out
value other considerations and the value of other
things. Deep positions are set apart from both
shallow and intennediate positions by this latter
rejection. Shallow positions maintain both assumptions and intermediate positions reject the
'Sole Value Assumption', but not the 'Greater
Value Assumption'.
Deep Ecology is not a science, despite the
T ao
Philosophy
l:und;uncnlal
pu.: n1 1S ~ S
j
Direc1ion of
k>CICi.l derivation
1
Pro\ctical decisions
Practical situations
with coocrerc: decisions
Level 3
f=::.:=:::::::;:=====:::E:J
Level 4
suggestion in the name. 'Deep Ecology is a normative and policy- and lifestyle-oriented
theory' (Sylvan 1985, 43). Like the science of
ecology, which deals with the relationships between organisms and their environments, Deep
Ecology is concerned with the place of organisms in their environment, but it is bound up
with value judgments about the organisms, their
environments, and the relationships between
them and with the wisdom of living by the principles revealed by ecology ·and not as with the
science of ecology with doing experiments that
reveal the principles. In a sense, Deep Ecology
uses ecology to overcome the embarrassment of
science at not being able to convert knowledge
into wisdom and state what is most needed - an
appreciation of how to value the environment
and ecological relationships.
Deep Ecology has four levels (see figure).
On the first level are the sources of the inspirations, insights, and intuitions of the movement.
These may be Christian, philosophical, Taoist,
or other sources. On the second level is the platform . The platfonn consists of principles or
departure formulations derived from level one.
On the third level are generalised hypotheses,
that is the level of strategic planning. These are
generalised ways of behaving towards the environment. The fourth level is the level of actions, that is the level of tactical execution.
These are specific actions in specific cases. If
the slogan, 'Think globally; act locally', is applied to these levels, then level three is the
global level and level four is the local level.
Only at level two is there a consensus, and here
the consensus is only a consensus of the intuitions of the principles and not on their exact formulations. Latitude is left for specific
fo rmulations for specific circumstances or
bioregions. Thus Deep Ecology is a loosely-
6
knit and open-ended pluralistic movement.
Considering that Tao is one possible source
for Deep Ecology, it is not astonishing that some
aspects of Deep Ecology resemble Tao and that
Deep Ecology embraces Taoist elements in it, although these elements may have been modified
for Western consumption. Appendix 1 gives
some idea of the range of similarities between
Deep Ecology and Taoism. For present purposes, only a few elements that relate to Taoism,
Deep Ecology and ecological sustainability will
be considered.
It is obvious from the description of Deep
Ecology that it promotes a philosophical core
that in tum promotes ecological sustainability.
Deep Ecology includes in its platform the notions of identification with the environment
through self-realization, voluntary simplicity,
and lower human population. The first two elements may have been derived from Tao, but the
third is not.
Self-realization is environmental selfrealization. Thus self is realized by seeking
possibilities within the ecological context rather
than simply within self. As the phrase 'ecological self' should make clear, self-realization is
not self-aggrandizement of the egotistical sort
now practiced. Self-realization is not an environmental glorification and glib justification
for an ego-cult. In the words of psychologist,
Anna-Marie Taylor 'inner ecology can't be
overlooked as part of the total ecology' because
' we are all in continuous interchange with the
world as part of the world' psychologically as
well as physically (Taylor 1987, 100). This
means that the distinction between oneself as the
subject and all around oneself as the object is
also broken down, but not totally obliterated.
Identification with the environment and items in
it does not imply that subject and object are
identical. The distinction between identification and identity avoids the crude fallacy: ' a is
related to b, e.g. sister of b, does not imply that
a is identical with b' (Sylvan 1985, 27). With
further regard to this breakdown, this also
means that the objectification that so often accompanies 'being objective' is discouraged .
The individual identifies with their environment
and treats it as an extension of self and self as
an extension of it, rather than separate, unrelated
entities. This identification reflects the Taoist
image of the uncarved block.
Self-realization is a normative premise. It is
not articulated in the same way for everyone. It
7
may be solitude in the wilderness for some and
gambolling in a crowded park for others.
Whatever the expression of self-realization, its
normative v·alue is intrinsic as opposed to instrumental. Self-realization is attempting to
recognize the intrinsic value in one's situation
as opposed to solely instrumental value. Selfrealization is part of dwelling in situations of inherent value and living a life 'simple in means;
rich in ends', in other words quality of life.
Against this normative premise it can be argued, as Sylvan does, that self-realization 'is
much too experiential. It renders value a feature
of those who experience value' (Sylvan 1985,
24). This criticism would imply that any value
to be had in dwelling in a situation of inherent
value would be value had by the dweller and not
shared by the dweller and situation dwelt in. If
this is the case, then self-realization becomes a
matter of maximizing situations of human intrinsic value, which in tum means maximizing
human-centered values, which reduces selfrealization to the same sort of anthropocentrre
and chauvinistic principle that it is meant to
avoid. However, if the internal/external relations dichotomy is dissolved as in Tao, valuer
and valued become as one and some of the force
of the criticism is dissipated.
'Self-realization individually and at all collective stages presupposes the accessibility of
diverse possibilities for personal growth various activities, and occupations, the utilization of geographical and climatic peculiarities,
the exploration of different art forms, broad cultural variation - preservation of diverse
cultures' (Naess 1978,4-5). Self-realization is a
fulfilment of capacities of the most diverse
kinds, as part of the environmental/ecological
whole and not as atomic egos. Realizing self,
where ''Self' stands for organic wholeness' is,
according to Devall and Sessions, the real work
of Deep Ecology (Devall and Sessions 1985,
67). Naess has characterized this with reference
to ecosophy:
The only contribution of ecosophy to
these...frameworks is the extension of the
concepts of social self...to concepts of
ecological self. These are wider concepts.
The social relations of self built up
through internal, not external, relations
to other humans, are complemented with
internal relations to non-humans. At the
age of two years we already have inter-
The slogan carries with it an economic reorganization wrapped in an ideological change.
'The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of
inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard ofliving' (Naess and
Sessions 1984, 5). This approach to the
economic reorganization incorporates a change
in attitudes towards what makes life worthwhile.
In the words of Robyn Williams, the presenter
of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's
Science Show:
nal relations to near features of the environment house, clothing, perhaps
some plants or animals. The body of a
child may get a new home, but the child
itself is not exactly the same. It does not
yet belong at the new place.
Only through a rather natural arrogance
humans in our kind of culture tend to set
humans apart. The slogan 'Not man
apart!' belongs to the most potent within
the deep ecological movement. One
might add 'Not man in environment!'
humans are strictly speaking not
separable from 'environment' as something 'outside' with which we only have
extrinsic relations (Naess nd, 2-3).
we have problems which we can solve. It
requires more than the attitudes ... current about what our values might be..The
values which are presented are only occasionally to do with the environment,
they are concerned basically with the bottom line, they are to do with money. ...
The kind of values that deal only with
personal disposable income (Williams
1987, 14).
By collapsing conventional distinctions and
dichotomies, self-realization moves away from ,
rather than towards egotistical notions of self.
By collapsing the internal/external relations distinction, humans are opened to what Naess has
called the 'ecological self'. The richness of life,
fecundity of reality, and quality of life are explored without reducing experiences to prepackaged symbols from the shelf or to
manifestations of material wealth. As examples
of this: it is the difference between learning to
play a musical instrument and merely switching
on a radio; and it is the difference between playing music as a background noise and actively listening to music. Humans count the environment
as part of what they are and their possibilities
are shaped with regard to environmental factors,
rather than in spite of them.
Ecological sustainability is enhanced because of the realization as in Tao that oneself is
part of the whole, of the uncarved block as it
were, and lack of ecological sustainability is
tantamount to lack of self-sustainability. Thus
self-sustainability becomes identified with
ecological sustainability. This argument appears circular, but rather it is cyclic reinforcement. One realization reinforces the other when
the connection between the two elements is
made. This cycle of description and prescription mirrors ecological cycles. The cycle of Tao
of being to nonbeing and nonbeing returning
again to being before becoming nonbeing again
is like the carbon cycle or the nutrient cycles or
any of the other ecological cycles.
The idea of voluntary simplicity is embodied
in the slogan, 'Simple in means, rich in ends'.
Deep Ecology opposes this mentality and the
goal of a growth-oriented exploitative economic
system. An ecologically sustainable society
with an ecologically-sound ethic need not
preclude a growth in quality, only the now pervasive dedication to a continual growth in quantity. Deep Ecology supports a steady state·
economy which sustains all life, not just human
life, with an emphasis on quality of life, rather
than material-oriented style of life. That is,
richness of experience need not depend on continual economic growth. Indeed, as emphasized
previously, resource depletion indicates that a
continual economk growth policy will result in
an eventual reduction in both quality of life and
style of life and that economic growth cannot
continue forever. A mentality of continual
growth to the exclusion of all else as now practised in industrialized societies is incompatible
with the inherent value of all life, with the maintenance of diversity, and it creates excessive
human interference. Furthermore, value is assessed on scarcity and commodity (i.e., instrumental) value, 'there is a prestige in vast
consumption and waste' (Naess and Sessions
1984, 7).
The end product of the current economicgrowth mentality which pushes the notion of
'bigger is better', where bigger means 'bigger
urban sprawls, bigger waste dumps, and bigger
8
areas of desertification. Rarely .if ever does bigger mean bigger rainforests, bigger wetlands
and other habitats for nonhuman animal species,
and bigger bio-regions that are not specifically
human artifacts' (Bennett and Sylvan 1988,
156). Bigger consumption means bigger mess.
Self-realization and voluntary simplicity
may have been derived from Tao, but the issue
of human overpopulation was not. Tao is silent
on the issue. In the halcyon days of Tao, human
overpopulation was not a problem. The then existing human population did not overfill and
overrun its niche, nor overutilise its resource
base. Now, from an ecological perspective, an
expanding human population ranks among the
greatest of environmental threats, for it is bound
up with most major environmental problems
(inter alia rates of consumption, inappropriate
technologies, pollution, and extinction of
species) but it is arelatively recent problem, i.e.,
with the last two hundred years.
It is senseless to contemplate ecological sustainability without addressing human overpopulation. Human fertility can outstrip the
possibility of ecological sustainability. The exponential growth of human population can outstrip the capacity of natural resources to sustain
our species, let alone most others, whom
humans would surely sacrifice before themselves. Population growth will generate increasing
demands for goods like food .grains, fishery
products, wood, minerals, and water. To make
matters worse, these will generally be obtained
in ways destructive and exploitative of the environment. To have ecological sustainability
the earth must have an ecologically sustainable
human population.
Deep Ecologists consider two countermeasures to faunal and environmental destruction: reduction of the human population, and
adoption and implementation of Deep Ecology's
departure formulations, or some other set of
principles that give rise to a heightened ecological consciousness. Besides attempting to
preserve the environment, another course of action is to reduce the threat of devastation by
reducing demands placed on the environment by
a rapidly expanding human population. There
is an inversely proportional relationship between these countermeasures. The larger the
human population the more urgent it is to supersede environmentally insensitive policies with
ecologically-inspired and sensitive policies.
Conversely, the lower the human population
9
(then theoretically) the more likely that human
devastation of the environment can be contained
without the immediate adoption of deep ecological principles. Naess states, 'The flourishing of
human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantial decrease of the human population.
The flourishing of non-human life requires such
a decrease' (Naess 1984, 4).
Among the most frequent misrepresentations
of Deep Ecology or for that matter any call for
a reduction of in the size of the human population are the charges of crude eco-brutalism or
genocide. Deep Ecology's call for a reduction
in the size of the human population is neither a
call for eco-brutalism nor genocide. First, the
loss of any species including humans is a
tragedy devoutly to be avoided. If, for no other
reason, a decrease in diversity is contrary to
Deep Ecological principles. For Deep Ecology,
there is a core democracy in the ecosphere.
Massive reduction in human numbers would
very likely enhance diversity in most habitats,
because threatened species would have an opportunity to recover and because species with
restricted distributions could spread out again.
The nonhuman environment cannot sustain, nor
be expected to continue to sustain, the increasing rates of population growth; and the problems
cannot be resolved unless the rate of growth and
the population growth cease altogether.
Second, despite ludicrous misrepresentations of
Deep Ecology by people like a San Francisco
journalist, Christopher Reed, no violence is implied. Reed talks of the ecological movement
containing 'hysterical extremism in a manner
nastily reminiscent of Hitler's volk-ism', thus
equating Deep EcolO¥Y to a kind of
'environmental Nazism' (R\!ed 1988, 3). The
decrease in numbers should be through natural
attrition and negative population growth among
other things, but not violent methods. Although
not stated as a principle, non-violence is an implicit norm common to most Deep Ecologists. It
is violence against the environment which Deep
Ecologists wish to change; they do not wish to
perpetuate violence to do it.
Maintaining the current growth economy
mania is more likely to produce violence, ecobrutalism, and genocide. Population dynamics
predict a decline in the human population will
occur anyway. In other species overpopulation
leads to population crashes where the population 'falls to around one-third the original level
and it does it fast' (Taylor 1970, 227). First, a
virorunental Ethics, paper commissioned by UNESCO on status of environmental philosophy in
Australia' by Richard Sylvan and myself. I wish
to acknowledge my indebtedness to Richard for
his contributions to this paper.
population explosion occurs when the methods
of regulation break down or as in the case of
human population are suspended through technology and social artifice. Then a decline or
crash occurs when the population exceeds its
resources or stress sets in. Although an artificially high human population (or the populations of other species, if humans so chose) can
be supported by technology and redistribution
of resources, the inevitable while postponed is
nonetheless inevitable. Even the postponement
of the inevitable by technology comes with the
caveat that the more people the world carries the
more care must be taken about what is done with
technology and its by-products (see Flannery
and Conlon 1989). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that while technology and redistribution may keep the wolf from the door (at least
for the affluent who can afford doors), social
and environmental stress will most likely set in
first and there is little or nothing that technology
can do about that.
To return to Tao for a moment, although Tao
is silent on the issue of population, it is not useless in addressing the population problem . The
idea of harmony with nature in Tao implies that
a human population level incompatible with or
overly stressful on the capacity of nature to
provide is contrary to the import of Tao. Recall
the metaphor of the chef cutting with the grain
of the meat and along the bone rather than across
it. The chef is in harmony with her/his resources. While overpopulation was not an issue for
Tao, disharmony was. Overpopulation is an example of disharmony par excellence. It cuts
across the bones of ecological sustainability.
The richness of the relationships between
Tao and Deep Ecology is not exhausted by these
areas of collaboration, but they do give the
flavour of the relationships among Tao, deep environmental ethics and ecological sustainability.
They go some way towards answering the initial
questions of 'What are the relationships among
ecological sustainability, deep environmental
ethics and Tao? ' and 'What can Tao offer
Western approaches to ecological sustainability?'
Leopold, A. (1953) Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold. London: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgement
Leopold, A. (1966). A Sand County Almanac.
New York: Oxford. (First published 1949).
Significant portions of this paper use and are
based on the papers 'Tao and Deep (Ecological)
Theory' and 'Australian Perspectives on En-
Naess, A. (n.d.) 'Individualism or Collectivism? '
Oslo: unpublished, 3pp.
10
Bibliography
Austin, N. (1989) 'Our Dying Oceans- Can We
Save Them?', Bulletin, 24 January: 36-42.
Bennett, D.H. and R. Sylvan. (1988) 'Ecological
Perspectives on an Expanding Human
Population', in L.H. Day and D.T. Rowland,
(eds) How Many More Australians? Melbourne: Longman Cheshire: 153-166.
Chan, W.T. (1963) The Way of Lao Tzu (Tao-te
Ching). New Yorlc: Bobbs Merrill.
Commission For The Future. (1989) Personal Action Guide For The Earth. Canberra: AGPS.
Devall, W. and G. Sessions. (1985) Deep Ecology: Living As If Nature Mattered. Salt Lake
City: Gibbs M. Smith.
Eckersley, R. (1988) 'The Need to Raise Our
Eyes to the Horizon of Our Future', Canberra
Times, 29 November: 9.
Endangered Species Advisory Committee. (1989)
An Australian National Strategy For The Conservation of Species and Habitats Threatened With
Extinction. Canberra: Australian National
Parks and Wildlife Service.
Flannery, T. and T. Conlon. (1989) 'A Vaccine
For The Plague?', Australian Natural History,
23: 148-155.
I
Hemenway, D. (1986) 'The Fate Of Our Forests:
A Time To Choose.' In The International Permaculture Species Yearbook: 1986, D. Hemenway, ed. Orange, MA: TIPSY.
Naess, A. (1984) ' What is Basic to Deep
Ecology '. Canberra: unpublished. 5pp.
Taylor, A-M. (1987) 'The Psychology of
Activism ', in F. Fisher (ed) Sustaining Gaia:
Contributions to Another World View. Clayton,
Vic.: Monash University Graduate School of
Environmental Science: 100-104. (Papers
from : Environment, Ethics and Ecology II:
1984).
Naess, A. and G. Sessions. (1984) 'Basic Principles of Deep Ecology', Ecophilosophy, VI, 37.
Reed, C. (1988) 'The New Age of Nature's
Warriors', Melbourne Age, 25 June: Saturday
Extra 3.
Taylor, G.T. (1970) The Doomsday Book. London: Thames and Hudson.
Sylvan, R. (1985) 'A Critique of Deep Ecology'.
Canberra: Australian National University,
Departments of Philosophy. (Discussion Papers
in Environmental Philosophy, 12).
Williams, R. (1987) ' Conservation or
Catastrophe'. Local Government Bulletin, 42:
14-17.
World Commission On Environment And
Development (1987) Our Common Future.
London: Oxford University Press.
1
11
Appendix 1. Deep Ecology contrasted with the dominant paradigm and with Taoism
Dominant
(Western) paradigm
Deep Ecology (DE)
Domination over
Nature
Harmony
Nature
Elaboration
of DE
Nature a Resource
Intrinsic Value
confined to humans
Natural Environment
Valued for Itself
Much as for DE;
'humanism'
rejected
Human supremacy
Biocentric
Egalitarianism
Differs from
DE;
wide impartiality
Ample Resources/
Substitutes
Earth Supplies
Limited
Supplies ample
Material Economic
a predominant goal
Non-material Goods,
especially SelfRealization
Following Growth
Tao-Te
Consumerism
Doing with Enough/
Recycling
Doing with
Enough (recycling
inappropriate)
Competitive
lifestyle
Cooperative
lifeway
Much as DE;
Voluntary
Simplicity
Centred/National
focus
Bioregional/
Neighbourhood focus
Power structure
Hierarchical
Non-hierarchical/
Grassroots
Democracy
Hierarchy
without Power
Structure
High Technology
Appropriate
Technoloogy
Limited
Technology
12
Taoism
I